Sunday, May 15, 2005

Nationals - Acquire Byrd

Washington Nationals - Acquired OF Marlon Byrd from the Philadelphia Phillies for OF Endy Chavez

The classic problem player for problem player trade. But in this case, the Nationals pick up the significantly better problem player and the only member of this trade that could conceivably play well enough to merit a starting job at some point. Thumbs up Bowden.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I don't quite understand why the Phillies would want Chavez. He's got excellent speed, but not the instincts to be either a superior basestealer or defender. Plus there's the whole "you can't steal first base" thing. At 27, he's unlikely to acquire the head/instincts necessary to be a worthwhile player. He's pretty mediocre even as a 4th or 5th outfielder.

Byrd's a better balance and seems to make adequate use of his physical tools. He's not as fast, but his defense is comparable to Chavez (average to slightly below average). He's also a better bet to possibly develop some pop (although that window is rapidly closing). I guess that the Phillies felt that he was redundant with Jason Michaels around. Still, I would have thought that they could have gotten someone better (or at least more interesting) than Endy Chavez.

A surprisingly astute move by Jim Bowden. With Wilkerson, Byrd, and Guillen, the Nationals have a respectable outfield for around $7M.

Personally, I think PECOTA does a better job at projecting Byrd's power potential as well as picking up on a higher likelihood for radical improvement (or total flameout), while Chavez is a better bet to simply meander around the same performance level (which is AAAA, IMHO).

Coming into the season, everybody (in the sabermetric community) was talking about how bad a GM Bowden is and how dumb his signings were. Well, the Nats are playing pretty good baseball. And Guzman pretty much blows but Castilla has been productive. And this is a pretty good move Bowden just made. I doubt Marlon Byrd would act up with Frank Robinson as his manager and/or maybe Jose Guillen could teach him a thing or two about not being an @sshole.

I just looked at Abreu's similar batters through age 30 and I expected to see at least a few HOFers, but there isn't even one on there. Though there is a possibility of 2 depending on how you feel about Bernie Williams and Larry Walker.

Bowdein is underrated. He has generally been solid to good and around here he's considered an idiot.

Bowden's made two good trades as Nationals' GM: Guillen and Byrd. His signings of Castilla and Guzman were horrible.

I'm not exactly sure what his tenure was as Reds GM (something like 1992-2002, right?). I'd have to give it some thought, but two bonehead moves that immediately come to mind are the Sean Casey contract extension and almost allowing the Griffey trade to fall through because he considered Pokey Reese to be untouchable (I'll give him a pass on Larkin's last contract extension, because that was more of the owner's call).

Bowden's not the worst GM in the world, but when he does screw up, he tends to screw up really, really big (Castilla, Guzman, Casey).

I think, in general the criticisms of Bowden stem from 2 things: 1)More than most GMs, he has a tendency to play mad scientist and shuffle through players quicker than he should have, and 2)In Cincinnati, at least, he was so enamored by Don Gullet's successes with picking some guys off the scrap-heap that he tried to do his entire pitching staff on the cheap, and it didn't work so well. But that's mostly my memories of other people's complaints, so take it for what it's worth.

Wait, why is Guillen a good trade? He seems to be pretty similiar to Rivera and the Nats gave up Izturis, who's probably just as good as Guzman. That's a lot of dollars thrown down the toilet if you ask me.

1)More than most GMs, he has a tendency to play mad scientist and shuffle through players quicker than he should have, and 2)In Cincinnati, at least, he was so enamored by Don Gullet's successes with picking some guys off the scrap-heap that he tried to do his entire pitching staff on the cheap, and it didn't work so well.

He was also in love with toolsy outfielders (Juan Encarnacio, Ruben Mateo) who tended not to work out so well (Wily Mo Pena did). And a lot of people made fun of him for that.

Where did you get them? I've never seen figures like those anywhere before. Do they exist for other players? How does whoever comes up with them come up with them? Or did you make them up and I'm missing the joke? I think it's pretty cool.

My first thought when I saw the headlines was, "Oh please Merciful Lord, don't let it be Paul." When I saw it was Marlon, and it was for my least favorite National, I was fairly estatic. Jim Bowden, I take back half the nasty things I've said about you. Those things in print, they stand though.

Attrition Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's plate appearances or a pitcher's opposing batters faced will decrease by at least 50% relative to his Baseline. Although it is generally a good indicator of the risk of injury, attrition rate will also capture seasons in which his playing time decreases due to poor performance or managerial decisions.

Breakout Rate
Breakout Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's EQR/PA or a pitcher's PERA will improve by at least 20% relative to the weighted average of his EQR/PA in his three previous seasons of performance. High breakout rates are indicative of upside risk.

Breakout rates measure change relative to a player's previously-established level of performance. For this reason, a high Breakout score can create a falsely optimistic picture for a player who has a very poor performance record. It is far easier for a player with a baseline of 40 EQR per season to improve upon that figure by 20% than it is for a player with a baseline of 100 EQR per season; as a result, his Breakout score is likely to be higher.

Collapse Rate

For hitters, Collapse Rate is the percent chance that the player's EQR/PA will decrease by at least 20% relative to the weighted average of his ERA/PA in his three previous seasons of performance. For pitchers, Collapse Rate is the percent chance that a pitcher's PERA will increase by at least 25% relative to his Baseline. High Collapse Rates are indicative of downside risk.

Improvement Rate
Improvement Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's EQR/PA or a pitcher's PERA will improve at all relative the weighted average of his ERA/PA or PERA in his three previous seasons of performance. A player who is expected to perform just the same as he has in the past will have an Improvement Rating of 50%.

Wait, why is Guillen a good trade? He seems to be pretty similiar to Rivera and the Nats gave up Izturis, who's probably just as good as Guzman. That's a lot of dollars thrown down the toilet if you ask

Totally agree with this statement. Rivera is pretty much Guillen for less money and a better attitude.

Plus the Angels pretty much showed everyone their cards for that hand, didn't they? Bowden still paid a lot for Guillen anyways. I'll never know perhaps whether other teams bid up the price for Guillen, but it still seemed high for a guy whom they were publically committed to trading away.

For the record, when I heard Byrd for Chavez, I thought Billy had gotten active, not that I would commit to equating Eric Chavez's and Marlon Byrd's values (of course I wouldn't, slow starts aside). But that does go to show that I would never have thought Endy worth Marlon.

Except Juan Rivera is hitting like crap and can't get his manager to start him while Guillen is hitting the ball hard enough to make up for not getting on base enough. I'm almost positive Guillen is the better defender too. One is a fungible bench player, the other is an important asset that is helping his team succeed.

I think it's reasonably clear that Byrd has more upside potential than Chavez, but notwithstanding that what's the point of trading your 5th OF for someone else's? Moreover, the Phils have Shane Victorino in Scranton hitting 299/375/598, and while he's got no more real track record than Chavez, he's at least only 24. And that's not to mention the AAAA guys like Rushford and Budzinski they've also got stashed there.

I'd never be one to encourage Ed Wade to go reliever shopping, but with a bullpen ERA of 6.47 and featuring two guys allowing more than 2 hits/inning maybe Byrd could have been dealt for something just a little more useful?

It is now the midle of May. If you want to place a lot of significance on 35-36 games go ahead. However, there is pretty convincing evidence that 1) even if Guillen is slightly better they are comparable hitters, 2) Rivera is younger and cheaper, 3) Rivera is blocked by three big name players in Anderson, Guerrero, and Finley when they are healthy and Guillen has no such problems, and 4) Izturis has a chance to be a big league player of the caliber of the Nats' current SS.

I don't see this being a good trade. At best it is a lot ot movement for nothing. And you can't evaluate a trade solely on what happens after it, especially with only 36 games worth of data on the table. The conditions and projections of the players invovled (not to mention money and the fact that Guillen could have been had for a song) are just as important.

As for Ed Wade, he is pretty close to being an idiot. While watching the Phillies' game last night he said that he has been tracking Endy for over a year and tried to trade for him last year. Endy might have value as a defensive replacement but to track him for over a year? Does he even understand how valuable fungible players are?

"However, there is pretty convincing evidence that 1) even if Guillen is slightly better they are comparable hitters"

That evidence boils down to Rivera's season last year. When Rivera was a prospect, despite high average seasons in Columbus (that's right, he's an ex-Yankee prospect), no one thought he could really be a good full time corner outfielder. So how much evidence is there really, that Rivera can hit with Guillen, who for the last two years and 35 games has been a .300 EQA hitter with good defense in right/left field. You want to give Rivera credit for his ABs last year, fine, but even then, he didn't hit as well (.279 EQA) as Guillen. He certainly hasn't been anywhere near Guillen as a hitter this year or the year before last. So go ahead, give Rivera the benefit of the doubt, that's your choice. But there is NOT any such thing resembling convincing evidence that Rivera is anywhere near the hitter that Guillen is.

"2) Rivera is younger and cheaper"

Guillen is making 3 mil, Rivera 400,000. It's worth it.

"3) Rivera is blocked by three big name players in Anderson, Guerrero, and Finley when they are healthy and Guillen has no such problems"

Guillen is a better hitter then two of those players and would not be behind them, even on the same team.

"4) Izturis has a chance to be a big league player of the caliber of the Nats' current SS.

I don't see this being a good trade."

I was comparing Juan Rivera to Jose Guillen, I didn't say anything about the trade. My only comment, which I've gone into more in this post, is that Rivera is not the ballplayer Guillen is.

As for the trade, its too bad the Nats are committed to Guzman, but trading a 4th outfielder and a utility guy/fringe starting SS who you can't use now (although he is useful) for a legit, just below allstar quality right fielder is a good haul IMO. Sure Izturis would have outhit Guzman, but he wasn't going to play, so trading him for something useful is the best possibility out there.

Guillen had a .283 EQA last year, Rivera had a .279. It seems you are basing Guillen's superiority on 315 AB's with Cincy in 2003 and 132 AB's this year. He is two years older and will be a free agent at theend of the year. 2.6 million isn't chump change for an organization with the problems the Nationals/Expos have experienced recently.

Do you really think that Guillen would be taking AB's away from Anderson and Finley right now? And does he have the ability to play CF? Or at least the percieved ability (which matters more when it comes to actual playing time)?

Just because a GM makes an unfortuante move to get an overpriced mediocrity in Christian Guzman for three years to block a younger player with nearly equivalent value making that younger player expendable doesn't mean that you are then off the hook for using that younger player to overpay for a slightly better corner outfielder. I think that was the world's longest sentence!

Guillen is also two years older than Rivera and prior to 2003 had even less going for him than Rivera did coming into last year. Guillen was going to leave Anaheim anyway this offseason and coudl have been had for much cheaper. I dont' see how Bowden made a good deal here.

I think it's pretty funny that things like "Attrition Rate" are expressed in terms of xx.x%. I mean, given the inherent error in the statistic (or indicator, or whatever) itself, isn't it sort of foolish to say 10.9% or 11.2% instead of just 11% for both. Nate Silver is much smarter than I, but when people put the decimal place into a statistic that clearly isn't significant to that level, it makes me say "hmm...".

Does this bother anyone else or am I just being ridiculous? (Okay, don't answer that.)

Ugggggghhhhhh!
Sorry, but this season has been intolerable. The trade is not so bad from a talent standpoint (Byrd may be better, but he would still be a fourth or fifth OF) but because it displays the Wade's complete lack of imagination. (not that this theory needed another data point in its favor).

WHY DO THIS TRADE? Did Ed think he was going to get his own Posednik or Pierre that would "spark" the offense. I believe Endy got a lot of AB's lst year at the begining of the season when the 'Spos were averaging like 2.1 runs/game. A disaster, complete disaster. Is there no way Ed could have got an arm somewhere, somehow? As 34 mentioned, there are plenty of OF who the phillies could plug in there.

I could see how Michaels made Byrd redundant, but when Lofton comes back, what does that make Endy? Flipped to the Yankees for some arms (and maybe even a body as well)? Oh lets hope.

Flipped to the Yankees for some arms (and maybe even a body as well)? Oh lets hope.

I really, Really don't understand this. At this point why does so many trade scenarios involve the Yankees...??? They need everything of value they have that's worth trading. Otherwise they have nothing worth valuing so what is "Wade" going to get from them for "Endy Chavez" anyway...??? What is anyone else going to get from them that actually has value... Jason Giambi...??? Kevin Brown...??? Come on...!!! Who's gonna be that foolish...???

And Guillen had 170 more abs. Any idea why Guillen's EQA compares so favorabley in the all time category vs. the current category and Rivera's is exactly the same. Regardless, Guillen was still the better hitter over more time.

"It seems you are basing Guillen's superiority on 315 AB's with Cincy in 2003 and 132 AB's this year."

No, I'm basing it off of his 534 PAs in 2003, in which he put up a .307 EQA, his 565 PAs in 2004, in which he put up a .283 EQA and 132 ABs this year in which he has put up a .312 EQA. Juan Rivera has put up a decent EQA once, in 391 abs, and it was lower then Guillens worst in the last 3 years. Juan Rivera's career EQA is .262. He had one good stretch of 170 ABs after the All-star break, Guillen has been a productive hitter for 2 and a quarter seasons.

"Do you really think that Guillen would be taking AB's away from Anderson and Finley right now?"

Nope. He's better then both of them, but I doubt he'd be taking ABs away from them.

"And does he have the ability to play CF? Or at least the percieved ability (which matters more when it comes to actual playing time)?"

He's played there before, but only as an emergency, that said, I'm pretty sure he could (at least as well as Anderson) play there if he's in shape, unlike last year.

"Just because a GM makes an unfortuante move to get an overpriced mediocrity in Christian Guzman for three years to block a younger player with nearly equivalent value making that younger player expendable doesn't mean that you are then off the hook for using that younger player to overpay for a slightly better corner outfielder."

No it doesn't. But of course, Guillen isn't slightly better then Rivera, he's noticeably and significantly better. Better rate stats and better defense while playing in a full time role while Rivera played on the bench makes Guillen a better player, period. The trade itself isn't great, but I don't see as much bad as you do.

"Guillen was going to leave Anaheim anyway this offseason and coudl have been had for much cheaper."

Prove that and I'll believe it.

"I dont' see how Bowden made a good deal here."

Bowden clearly knows how Guillen ticks. He has so far coaxed the most productivity out of Guillen so far, its likely that Bowden knows how to deal with Guillen's volatile personality. He got a guy when he was low, and has so far gotten a pretty good year out of him. Guillen may come crashing down, but Bowden believe he can get All-star production out of Guillen and so far he's been right.

Trevise,
I wouldn't say the Yankees "need" everything they have (whatever that means). I also wouldn't sugest that Bell or Lieberthal be traded to the Yankees. I do , however, think that Matsui-Chavez-Sheff is better than Womack-Matsui-Sheff (defensively) and that pursuing a centerfielder would be the best way for the yankees to improve their everyday lineup while unloading an underperforming reliever. That, combined with Wade's fetish for "proven set-up men" (see Jones, Rodriguez, Worrell, Hernandez, et. al) makes a deal a posibility. What's the problem?

I wouldn't say the Yankees "need" everything they have (whatever that means). I also wouldn't sugest that Bell or Lieberthal be traded to the Yankees. I do , however, think that Matsui-Chavez-Sheff is better than Womack-Matsui-Sheff (defensively) and that pursuing a centerfielder would be the best way for the yankees to improve their everyday lineup while unloading an underperforming reliever. That, combined with Wade's fetish for "proven set-up men" (see Jones, Rodriguez, Worrell, Hernandez, et. al) makes a deal a posibility. What's the problem?

Jesse,

Demerits for not reading what I actually wrote. It was"They need everything of value they have that's worth trading." Yesterday I wrote #9: "At this time the Yankees are like a dog chasing its own tail. If anyone thinks that the other 29 MLB teams are going to help them break the cycle without serious considerations being involved..." Yes, no doubt that Chavez is better than Womack. This deal certainly makes sense for the Yankees but what besides nothing does it do for the Phillies...? Why would he want to do this with the Yankees when he probably matches up better with any one of 27 other teams in re - Chavez? The same applies in acquiring an "underperforming reliever" if that's a particular Wade fetish.

The Yankees have used some of their 'otherworldly revenue advantages' wisely. In many cases they've used them foolishly. They've used their 'ultimate power' in the marketplace as a blunt force object rather than as a finely crafted surgical instrument. Now that they've painted themselves into a corner, people expect the other teams and MLB to come to their rescue... Why, Why, WHY...? I say they've created their own misery, let them wallow in it and learn from their own mistakes. That is if they are capable of actually seeing the problems they've caused themselves and working out how to extract themselves from them independently. As Frank Herbert once wrote: "Short term expediency always fails in the long term." Into each life some mediocrity must fall. And not even George is exempt. ;-) ...

That evidence boils down to Rivera's season last year. When Rivera was a prospect, despite high average seasons in Columbus (that's right, he's an ex-Yankee prospect), no one thought he could really be a good full time corner outfielder.

Well, no one except Baseball America, which had him on their Top 100 prospects list in both 2002 (#67) and 2003 (#55). And Baseball Prospectus, who had him in their Top 40 both years (22 in 2002, 37 in 2003). And I think John Sickels, but I don't recall offhand.

Yes, he played a lot of CF in the minors, but the general consensus was that a move to a corner was at least a strong possibility, and pretty clearly was a factor in the rankings. BP's 2003 list even has him listed as a LF.

Rivera had a slow start last year, and FRobby was consequently down on him. (He'd only been part of the organization subsequent to the Vazquez trade.) As the season wore on, Rivera improved markedly, and FRobby played him regularly.

The MLB-owned Nats have been allowed more payroll room than the MLB-owned Expos, so on that basis the Guillen trade makes sense, because the Nats got a better player than Rivera for the here and now. However, Rivera has a better upside, because he is younger and more likely to improve.

If Rivera is just by nature a slow starter, and has a better attitude, then comparing Guillen in 2005 with Rivera in 2005 is not particularly informative.

However, one also has to add in the element that FRobby is not a Rivera fan. On that basis, the deal of Izturis (by then blocked by Guzman) and Rivera for Guillen made sense. However, if I'd been Expos/Nats GM, I wouldn't have done it, and would have told FRobby to work with Rivera and put Izturis in at shortstop. I'd rather take the upside risk - particularly in the Nationals' position. They're bound to have a better attendance than a team in Montréal, as the new guys in town, with every hope of a long stay under new, non-MLB owner(s).

The 2004 Expos were not as bad as they started, and to think that they were leads to bad analysis.

Just because a GM makes an unfortuante move to get an overpriced mediocrity in Christian Guzman for three years to block a younger player with nearly equivalent value making that younger player expendable doesn't mean that you are then off the hook for using that younger player to overpay for a slightly better corner outfielder. I think that was the world's longest sentence!

This deal certainly makes sense for the Yankees but what besides nothing does it do for the Phillies...? Why would he want to do this with the Yankees when he probably matches up better with any one of 27 other teams in re - Chavez?

Like I previously stated, the Yankees haven't cornered the market on overpaid underperforming relievers. Nor are they in any way "endangered." I'm quite sure Ed Wade can get his "RDA" of "OUR's" from any of the other 27 teams with the added bonus that they may be less overpaid and less underperforming than those the Yankees may have to tempt him with. If not, then maybe he needs to sit in the corner and suck his thumb for awhile.

He had a ~.365 OBP in 2003. Obviously he was doing something right that year.

Re: Rivera vs Guillen

I'd rather have Guillen, even at the higher salary. Guillen has better power and plays much better defense.

I had it in my mind that the trade was each player straight up for the other. With Izturis, my opinion of the trade overall is unfavorable. But there's no doubt that Guillen's an upgrade over Rivera, even when taking into account their respective salaries.

Ed Wade was interviewed on local station WIP this Saturday by Glen Macnow and the most excellent Ray Didinger. Wade made some comment about not making moves to make moves in mid-May. As soon as I heard the announcement Saturday night, I immediately thought "Hmm, a move to make a move".
Yesterday, Uncle Chollie had Chavez batting second -- you know, he puts the ball in play, moves the runner, has that great speed. Endy "Inning" Chavez did have a triple yesterday -- a looper down the LF line that Adam Dunn played clumsily. Chavez did fly around the bases and was fun to watch. I know that the moments of fun will be few and far between.
As near useless as Chavez is, I hope that they release the totally useless and spent Jose Offerman when Lofton comes back.

On fielding, I've done even less research, but in 2004 Guillen played lots in LF for a ZR of .843, while Rivera played all three OF positions, scoring .895 ZR in RF (most common), .850 in LF, and .750 in CF. Rivera also had more assists.